About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 4, San Francisco 2, Stephanie 1, David Chu 1, Mark Ferrel 1, City 1, The Board 1, Ncd 1, Miller 1, Galileo 1, Ferrel 1, Mary Brown 1, Mr. Dar Beis 1, Sacramento 1, Herman 1, Chu 1, Brown 1, Jon Tu 1, Mike Ferrel 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 18, 2013
    1:30 - 2:00pm PDT  

1:30pm
1:31pm
1:32pm
1:33pm
1:34pm
1:35pm
1:36pm
1:37pm
1:38pm
1:39pm
1:40pm
good afternoon. welcome to the land use committee. to my right is supervisor jim and supervisor david chu. i would like to thank sfgtv for broadcasting. miss miller are there any announcements? >> yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and any other devices. items acted upon today will be on the march 26 board of supervisors agenda. >> thank you. for members of the public who wish to make any public comment on any particular item, there is one item in particular, please fill out a blue card at the front and note the agenda item for
1:41pm
which you will be speaking. >> madam clerk item no. 1. >> for the sacramento neighborhood district. >> this is sponsored by supervisor mike ferrel. >> good afternoon, appearing on behalf of supervisor mark ferrel. want to give you the gist of the legislation. it a simple piece of legislation. several months ago we received a call. he described the unique nature of his property and neighborhood commercial use, a victorian, a designate potential historic resources.
1:42pm
the ground level space is not visible from the street with multiple levels of stairs. i have pictures of that if you would like to take a look. the hidden nature of the property is problematic for most businesses. they did occupy the space for some time and recently vacated. the property was listed on craigslist with no takers. it's zoned for business use. they are given a lack of visibility from the street. the second floor of the property consist of four offices for mental health providers. the floors would have to be compatible with the upstairs use. it seems the ground floor would be provided for mental health providers. the only way to remedy the situation one we felt worth addressing was to a legislation. legislation in this case is needed due to the fact that new medical services uses are prohibited on all
1:43pm
floors which is a relative small ncd. when drafting the legislation we want to respect the concerns of the prohibition in the first place. the concerns. in 1987 when the controls were put in place the concerns that medical services were displacing residential units. we know how important community outreach is, we reached out to fan, and the merchants in the street. they reviewed it and looked at the legislation and i also met with the owner of the property and walked the entire commercial district. we also met with the planning department and legislation they assured us that what we have drafted as far as legislation goes was going to meet our concerns. so,
1:44pm
the board of fan, he unanimously approved it. there are technical amendments that the planning commission recommended. i passed those out unless you want me to read them. they are non-substantive. i think i will spare you the page line and the number. with that i would ask that you adopt the amendments and this is relatively easy piece of legislation but of course in drafting it we want to respect the concerns of the neighborhood commercial district and we ask that you forward this to the full board for recommendation. >> thank you, miss stephanie. is the planning department making a separate presentation or not? >> no that was purposely out of the planning commission unanimously is in support. >> if there are no introductory comments we'll open this up to public comment. is there any member of the public who would
1:45pm
like to speak in relate to go item no. 1. seeing no one. public comment is closed. supervisor ferrel, is proposing amendments that are non-substantive. can we take them without objection? so forward. and is it for recommendation? >> i will make a motion. >> cab can we take that without objection? thank you. >> item no. 2. >> the doelger building under landmark no. 10. >> thank you. i'm the sponsor of this landmark. miss brown is here. would you like to make remarks about the landmarking? >> yes. thank you.
1:46pm
good afternoon supervisors, mary brown to present the proposed -- as individual landmark t building was added to the historic preservation in work program in june 2011 to september 19, 2012 and the october 3rd recommendation hearing. the commission voted unanimously for the building based on a historical and architectural buildings. from 1932-1950 served as a base of operations and through extra
1:47pm
ordinarily rapid expansion and architectural art expression and extreme modern design and represents a successful merging of the two modern styles. examples of the design elements influenced by these styles includes a step backcountry way, curved walls and over hangs. features extend to the public lobby area which display art deco in spiert inspired on the door. and pattern railings. the property was recently purchased by jeff dar by and he's been contacted for preservation of the building. mr. dar beis in the process of stabilized the building and rehabilitation and adoptive reuse of the property. a
1:48pm
representative from the dar be -- family is here. if approved by the board of supervisors it will be the 255th landmark duress during it's 45 year preservation program. and also a person's events and architecture in san francisco western half with an area of few landmarks. this concludes my presentation. >> anyone who would like to make a public comment. i have one public comment from ash will key. >> i'm a family representative. we are really excited and happy to support the designation. we are planning on moving our small business to this space
1:49pm
and working on reservation to restore the building on how fabulous it was. >> thank you very much. great. is there any other member of the public who would like to comment on item no. 2? seeing none, public comment is close. i think this is a very strong landmark. the planning department were close to the property owners and it's a beautiful building. i think it does have historical significance. can we have a motion to forward with this origination? then without objection that will be the order. thank you. madam clerk please call item no. 3. >> code regulations. >> thank you very much, supervisors. program director of the arts commission. here
1:50pm
before you to ask for these five spaces, it's on a sidewalk where you have generously us other spaces and i want you to know as a preface that i met with the general manager as well as the street artist who sell regularly at adjacent herman plaza and that particular block, the hotel wants the street artist there. so we met and came up with an idea proposal for you that it would require several exemption police code regulations dealing with the display size of the street artist and dealing with the door ways and distance
1:51pm
between street artist. as i mentioned before when i have come before you, ordinance no. 383 authorizes the board of supervisors to designate or redesignate spaces subject to exemptions of one or more of the police code regulations as long as the board finds the exemption will not be inconsistent with or interfere with the purpose of regulation from which the area is exempted. since 1983, the board made in 40 resolutions since 1983 made such designations with exemptions. so this is no different in that respect. the exemption, basically, you have to picture the sidewalk. it's enormous. it's 46 feet wide. one of the regulation for the
1:52pm
street artist is that a street artist display must allow for at least 8 feet of a pedestrian passageway between the edge of the galileo display and the opposite building. even though we ask for size regulations there would still remain a pedestrian passageway of 41 pete feet between the artist and building and that is the space for the required passageway. i mentioned a street artist space is 4 feet wide by 5 feet at all. and other street artist spaces on that same sidewalk you have allowed an exemption from those regulation because the street artist have larger display in filling their quality crafts. so if you will also exempt them
1:53pm
from those size regulations, that would permit their booths to be 8 feet wide by 10 feet long by 7 feet tall as those booths are in the other spaces in that sidewalk. then finally, i wanted to say to you that you will find in the map that i had submitted with the proposal that these spaces would fall directly opposite door ways of the hotel and i was very sensitive to that and very interested to find out what the hotel manager had to say about it. he says he has no problem with that because again the sidewalk is so wide that even god forbid there would be a disaster, there is enough room for people to get out. and we
1:54pm
are asking for the use of these spaces for only one day of the week and that is on saturdays because that's when the artist can really use it. they would not occupy the spaces other times. also the hotel manager has agreed to alert us in advance of any major event that the hotel would be putting on. i told them i didn't want to have street artist there when there is a big major event and a lot of people there. and finally the last exemption we would ask for is the current, the regulation is that you cannot have a street artist within 5 feet of another street artist and if you exempt the spaces from that regulation, basically you are having a booth right next to each other and you have done that with, i believe it's 15 other spaces on that same sidewalk. so, that's pretty much it for my presentation. we have the
1:55pm
market manager, street artist market manager here who could speak also and i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. any questions? seeing none we'll open to comments. i see one comment card. >> hello, my name is jon tu. i'm the street manager. this place historically that two years ago we lost something like 30 spaces on the plaza when the occupied then camp meant and they gave us a lot of leeway. we liked those spaces and they have become very
1:56pm
central and the hotel is okay with it and that's why we are making this formal request. it's only one day, it's saturday. if there is a major event in the hotel, we will vacate those spaces to them. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> thank you very much. is there any additional public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues do we have a motion to move to a positive direction? >> so moved. >> no objection? item moved forward. >> item no. 4 -- >> thank you. i will just note that it is the intent of the sponsors of the legislation that today would be an informational hearing. so we'll hear presentation today, we'll
1:57pm
take public comments and we'll consider a motion to continue this for one week and next week's land use and economic development hearing we'll consider whether to forward the items to the full board. so there would be another opportunity during next week's hearing. i'm a cosponsor with this legislation along with supervisor chu. we know from experience that soft story buildings do not do well in earthquakes. we have many soft story buildings in san francisco including a lot of rent control housing stock and this housing stock is at risk for collapse during a major earthquake and we are aware that our next big one is likely to be larger than the loma prieta earthquake. quake
1:58pm
preparedness has a lot of aspects in terms of responding well and perhaps we can do is make people stay in their home after an earthquake and we do not have an exceptionally large number of people to displace. the purpose of this legislation is to help keep people in their homes and make sure when we rebuilding from the next earthquake that we don't lose a number of rent control units. i think we've crafted a very balance piece of legislation that will move us forward in our safety of housing stock and anytime you mandate people to do work on their homes, there is cost and disruption involved and i don't want to minimize that this is going to be easy for everyone. i want to really compliment the mayor's office for working really hard to come
1:59pm
up with a process for home owners and tenants. >> thank you, i also want to echo for all the folks working on this topic. this is a situation that we've known for many many years we as a city have to grapple with. we know the big one, the significant earthquake that we are expecting will happen over the next 30 years will be 2-3 times as significant as the loma prieta earthquake and in that earthquake over 7,000 units were destroyed. in the northridge quake there were over 34 thousand buildings destroyed. the last time our city had a significant conversation around

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)